Plurality Veto: A Simple Voting Rule Achieving Optimal Metric Distortion (2206.07098v2)
Abstract: The metric distortion framework posits that n voters and m candidates are jointly embedded in a metric space such that voters rank candidates that are closer to them higher. A voting rule's purpose is to pick a candidate with minimum total distance to the voters, given only the rankings, but not the actual distances. As a result, in the worst case, each deterministic rule picks a candidate whose total distance is at least three times larger than that of an optimal one, i.e., has distortion at least 3. A recent breakthrough result showed that achieving this bound of 3 is possible; however, the proof is non-constructive, and the voting rule itself is a complicated exhaustive search. Our main result is an extremely simple voting rule, called Plurality Veto, which achieves the same optimal distortion of 3. Each candidate starts with a score equal to his number of first-place votes. These scores are then gradually decreased via an n-round veto process in which a candidate drops out when his score reaches zero. One after the other, voters decrement the score of their bottom choice among the standing candidates, and the last standing candidate wins. We give a one-paragraph proof that this voting rule achieves distortion 3. This rule is also immensely practical, and it only makes two queries to each voter, so it has low communication overhead. We also generalize Plurality Veto into a class of randomized voting rules in the following way: Plurality veto is run only for k < n rounds; then, a candidate is chosen with probability proportional to his residual score. This general rule interpolates between Random Dictatorship (for k=0) and Plurality Veto (for k=n-1), and k controls the variance of the output. We show that for all k, this rule has distortion at most 3.
- Randomized social choice functions under metric preferences. In Proc. 25th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 46--59, 2016.
- Approximating optimal social choice under metric preferences. In Proc. 29th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 777--783, 2015.
- Approximating optimal social choice under metric preferences. Artificial Intelligence, 264:27--51, 2018.
- Distortion in social choice problems: an annotated reading list. SIGecom Exchanges, 19(1):12--14, 2021a.
- Distortion in social choice problems: The first 15 years and beyond. In Proc. 30th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4294--4301, 2021b.
- Comparing election methods where each voter ranks only few candidates. In Proc. 34th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2218--2225, 2020.
- Duncan Black. On the rationale of group decision making. J. Political Economy, 56:23--34, 1948.
- Incomplete information and communication in voting. In Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D. Procaccia, editors, Handbook of Computational Social Choice, chapter 10, pages 223--257. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
- Optimal social choice functions: A utilitarian view. Artificial Intelligence, 227:190--213, 2015.
- Voting almost maximizes social welfare despite limited communication. Artificial Intelligence, 175(9):1655--1671, 2011.
- Subset selection via implicit utilitarian voting. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 58:123--152, 2017.
- The metric distortion of multiwinner voting. Artificial Intelligence, 313:103802, 2022.
- Metric distortion bounds for randomized social choice. In Proc. 33rd ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, pages 2986--3004, 2022.
- Favorite-candidate voting for eliminating the least popular candidate in a metric space. In Proc. 34th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1894--1901, 2020.
- Vote elicitation: Complexity and strategy-proofness. In Proc. 17th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 392--397, 2002.
- Random dictators with a random referee: Constant sample complexity mechanisms for social choice. In Proc. 33rd AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1893--1900, 2019.
- On voting and facility location. In Proc. 17th ACM Conf. on Economics and Computation, pages 269--286, 2016.
- Alan F. Gibbard. Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica, 41(4):587--601, 1973.
- Resolving the optimal metric distortion conjecture. In Proc. 61st IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 1427--1438, 2020.
- Metric distortion of social choice rules: Lower bounds and fairness properties. In Proc. 18th ACM Conf. on Economics and Computation, pages 287--304, 2017.
- Relating metric distortion and fairness of social choice rules. Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Economics of Networks, Systems and Computation, 2018.
- Vote until two of you agree: Mechanisms with small distortion and sample complexity. In Proc. 31st AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 544--550, 2017.
- David Kempe. Communication, distortion, and randomness in metric voting. In Proc. 34th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2087--2094, 2020a.
- David Kempe. An analysis framework for metric voting based on LP duality. In Proc. 34th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2079--2086, 2020b.
- Efficient and thrifty voting by any means necessary. In Proc. 33rd Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019.
- Hervé Moulin. On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. Public Choice, 35:437--455, 1980.
- Improved metric distortion for deterministic social choice rules. In Proc. 20th ACM Conf. on Economics and Computation, pages 245--262, 2019.
- Approval-based elections and distortion of voting rules. In Proc. 28th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 543--549, 2019.
- Ariel D. Procaccia. Can approximation circumvent Gibbard-Satterthwaite? In Proc. 24th AAAI Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 836--841, 2010.
- The distortion of cardinal preferences in voting. In Proc. 10th Intl. Workshop on Cooperative Inform. Agents X, pages 317--331, 2006.
- Mark A. Satterthwaite. Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10:187--217, 1975.
- Thomas D. Seeley. Honeybee Democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 2010.